View Full Version : Demo FPS
Hi.
I got a question about frame rates. Playing the game on low graphics (using Fraps and taking note on "critical" battle spots) i had between 25 and 30 fpsand between 18 and 25 using normal setings.
People say that a game runs well on your machine when you got 30 fps, not less than that. But knowing that TW games have a "diferent style" (as they envolve thousands of units) i wanna ask: is this a bad frame rate? If not, what wold be an acceptble fps?
Ah, i also wanna ask: did you also had horrible fps playing on the "auto detected" setings? Cuz playing in those setings my fps dropped to 10 :P
Some say 30 fps is enough to play a game,but I don't find it enough.Especially with shooters, you need a high fps (125 fps is ideal).
For total war games you don't need that high fps,but I wouldn't like to go under 70 fps :no:
It runs so more smoothly than with 30 fps....
So,actually,going UNDER 30 fps really is unplayable in my opinion,but if that is okay with you in person,then who am I?
WOW!!! 125 fps? Are you sure??? Cuz well, i got a geforce 6600, 1024 ram in dual channel and an AMD 3000+ and i dont have such fps even playing Chezz :P, or Pac Man... woldnt that be a missunderstanding?
Dude,I'm playing call of duty 2 on 250 fps :egypt:
Belgolas
11-01-2006, 23:24
well Eques you have good enough FPS. Total war does not need high frame rates. Shooters only need 60 frames per second. hoetje isjust dumb. You don't need that much.
What is the tool to get the fps of game again?
Its a program called FRAPS.
Duncan_Hardy
11-01-2006, 23:58
It's a matter of balance, based on whether you are willing to sacrifice performance for visuals or vice versa. Play around with the settings until you have enough eye candy and a decent framerate and stick to that setup.
Turn off shadows. Literally increased my fps by an order of magnitude.
And 250fps is just insane. LCD monitors only have a refresh of 60 hz, most CRT ones no more than 100hz at most resolutions. So any higher is wasted.
well Eques you have good enough FPS. Total war does not need high frame rates. Shooters only need 60 frames per second. hoetje isjust dumb. You don't need that much.
Why thank you Belgolas...Read my post : it says : in my opinion!
Thanks. I have run it with the demo and i'm a bit above 30 fps. It goes fine imo. So no worries. :2thumbsup:
I agree that Heotje is talking poo. Those who are sensibly asking the question in this thread ought to ignore him - he's clearly bragging about how fast his system is :shame:
If you can get more than 60fps in any game - it's more than adequate. The only way you'd want more is if you have a top-end CRT monitor which has a high refresh rate. If you had a high refresh rate, say, 100Hz and wanted to turn V-Sync on then you'd ideally want to be able to get 100fps, otherwise you'd drop to 50fps. I knw a lot of UT tournament winners and they aim for 60+ as a minimum frame rate.
When you're playing an RTS, or a Strat game like MTW, you don't need anything like that kind of framerate. I've been playing Company of Heroes at about 45fps and you never see a judder at those kind of framerates in that kind of game. It's only ever gonna be on first person, action-packed games that you'll want higher.
I've been playing the M2TW demo at 15-25fps and it's more than enough. If you want to play at high res, with everything maxed then unless you have a top end Core2Duo chip and an SLi setup then you won't be getting over 30fps.
I'd like to bet that there ain't a rig out there yet that will average 40fps on this game maxed out. When it's finally released, I'll take it over to my mate's house who's got an X6800 overclocked to 4.5GHz on Freon, matched up to a X1950XTX Crossfire setup and find out for ya :beam:
shifty157
11-02-2006, 02:42
When it's finally released, I'll take it over to my mate's house who's got an X6800 overclocked to 4.5GHz on Freon, matched up to a X1950XTX Crossfire setup and find out for ya :beam:
Thats just absurd! You could probably cook your dinner on that machine when its running.
AussieGiant
11-02-2006, 09:49
"I'd like to bet that there ain't a rig out there yet that will average 40fps on this game maxed out. When it's finally released, I'll take it over to my mate's house who's got an X6800 overclocked to 4.5GHz on Freon, matched up to a X1950XTX Crossfire setup and find out for ya"
maestro, if you could do that, it would be great to check what happens.
Well, having never actually used Fraps before, I have discovered that I apparently have been happily playing RTW (RTR PE) at about 10fps for the big battles, under 10fps is where I really start to notice it slow.
I was really quite surprised how low it was, I thought it'd be about 15fps that it got jerky but with Fraps, I now know that I'm actually perfectly happy playing TW games at 15fps :yes:
Me I'm playing with most stuff maxed at 1900*1200 with 2*AA & 8*AF on an X1900GT with a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo.
Fully maxed at 1900*1200 with aa/af as above, it bottoms to about 7fps but tweaked down a bit (ie shadows & grass at medium) I can hit a nice 15fps :beam:
I did a bit of experimenting earlier & found that with everything maxed, no aa/af & at 1024&768, I was still only hitting about 30fps in the slow bits :juggle2:
AussieGiant
11-02-2006, 11:09
Holy Hell Hoom that makes me worried.
I just purchase a Dell XPS 700.
2.66 Duo 4Mb Cache. 7950GX2 with 1gig plus 2 gigs of 667 Hz ram with a Raid 0 stripe.
Now, are you telling me that I wont be able to run everything on max!??
I'm worried about your answer.
No no no - don't worry. You'll easily run everything at max at the resolution of your screen. It'll be at around 25-30fps, I guess. It's not that you won't be able to max everything, I just don't want anyone to be under the illusion that first person shooter framerates are gonna be possible here.
It depends entirely on the resolution you play at & how much AA/AF you run.
A gf7950gx2 is approximately twice the power of my x1900gt so you should be totally fine even if you have some crazy super high-res screen like a dell 30".
AussieGiant
11-02-2006, 12:22
Hi Hoom and Maestro,
Yes I failed to mention that I already have a Samsung Sync Master P193 so I did not buy a new monitor.
That means I am set at 60hz on 1280*1024. It's good enough for me and I think this "Mid range" resolution will allow me more leeway to increase the various graphic options.
What do you two think?
I think you have much more graphic card than you need for 1280*1024 :sweatdrop:
I wonder if the demo can be trusted as for the fps we'll get with the final game. Don't u think the game will be more optimized?
I think you have much more graphic card than you need for 1280*1024 :sweatdrop:
I concur :2thumbsup:
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-02-2006, 15:07
I get around 30 FPS with my P4 2.53 Ghz, 1Gb RAM and 7600 GT, with everything turned to high apart from AA, which is at x2, and shadows, which are off. However, I'm using a really tiny monitor, so I'm only using 1024*768.
I am the first to admit that I was really stupid when I upgraded, I have quite an old lg 19" tft, and I have bought a 7900 GT(512mb), to be blunt I have way to much graphics grunt for my screen, which can only manage 1280x1024 and 60hz.
professorspatula
11-02-2006, 19:29
Yes but you have to think of games in the future. It'll be able to still play games at that resolution at a high detail for some time, providing the rest of your PC doesn't become a bottleneck. Whereas my aging rig is having to play games on an ever decreasing resolution.
Anyway, when it comes to framerates with a TW game, its not a massive concern for me. Battles can play out very nicely at low framerates because the game doesn't require exact responsiveness. Providing the troops are bashing each other and respond to my commands without too much delay, it's all good.
Zenicetus
11-02-2006, 19:51
I wonder if the demo can be trusted as for the fps we'll get with the final game. Don't u think the game will be more optimized?
The second demo with the Otumba battle is the "Gold" release, as far as we've been told. So that's the graphics engine in the final game. CA might still tweak the performance in future patches, or this could be as good as it gets (which I think is pretty good, considering everything that's happening onscreen).
One thing though... I don't think the demo can be trusted as a complete preview of frame rates, because open field battles don't have as many polygons and textures as a castle siege. With walls and buildings rendered, along with flaming arrows, smoke, catapult/cannon fire, wall destruction effects... as well as the armies themselves.... we could see slower frame rates. Or maybe not. Can't tell until the game is released, and we try some massive sieges.
astonkiller
11-03-2006, 11:51
hi play rome whith 25fps all on high settings plays great.medieval 2 all low settings :help: 2-4 fps thants the gold demo please help.ps do i buy the game or not ie will the game have more options.
x-dANGEr
11-03-2006, 13:52
Well.. I was having a 1 on 1 on MP, my FPS rate dropped to zero at the initial melee contact, losing me the game.. Though, from my experience with lag, anything 10+ in a TW game is fine.
Though, reading your posts, now I know that those "flashs" in UT are just frames missing.. Damn! My 13-25 FPS rate isn't enough after all..
astonkiller
11-03-2006, 14:00
hi aney one now how i can get more fps out of my computer.p4 win xp 660ram, ati 128 3d card.ps it a laptop:help:
Sorry to be so blunt, but buy a new one. :shame:
You can't upgrade the graphics on a laptop and you can't upgrade the processor. You're gonna really struggle.
AussieGiant
11-03-2006, 15:21
I am the first to admit that I was really stupid when I upgraded, I have quite an old lg 19" tft, and I have bought a 7900 GT(512mb), to be blunt I have way to much graphics grunt for my screen, which can only manage 1280x1024 and 60hz.
I do believe that is what I have just done!!
DOH!!
Ahh well I'll let you guys take at look at my screenies when I'm running Absolutely everything on max at 1280*1024!!
thanks hoom and maestro for getting back to me.
Its a shame to be unable to play the game on max setings the golden light shining over hundreds of helms when you turn bloom on... its just so beasutifull. Like when rome was coming out, most peopole cant play it on the highest setings. :sweatdrop:
Well, instead of this very sad thing, i believe there are good things to mention. You see how allmost nothing change when your talking about other games series (like need for speed, fifa, nba live and so on). In most cases people can play the next generation of these games using theyr same computer. This doesnt happens to our Total War games :)
People may complain about how the game is heavy, and how the AI is bla bla, and about suicidall generals, or "rocket" horses, but we all can be sure of one thing: the game is improving gentleman and i dont know if it will stop becoming more beautifull after every passing year :P
So i will play with my 20 fps :shame: .... yes knowing that i will wipe the english with my french horses!!! Meet you in the fields!!!
For you guys who are "stuck" on a 1280x1024 monitor.....
This is not a bad thing
If you can really max every detail and give it 4xFSAA and 16XAF you will have a beautiful looking game. If you've got a bucket load of Full Screen Anti Aliasing on then you'll never need more than 1280 resolution.
Enjoy! ~D
Phalaxar
11-03-2006, 22:59
Hi.
I got a question about frame rates. Playing the game on low graphics (using Fraps and taking note on "critical" battle spots) i had between 25 and 30 fpsand between 18 and 25 using normal setings.
People say that a game runs well on your machine when you got 30 fps, not less than that. But knowing that TW games have a "diferent style" (as they envolve thousands of units) i wanna ask: is this a bad frame rate? If not, what wold be an acceptble fps?
Ah, i also wanna ask: did you also had horrible fps playing on the "auto detected" setings? Cuz playing in those setings my fps dropped to 10 :P
Yo.
No, the auto-detected settings were less than what I enjoyed playing. I changed just about everything to High, from Medium, and it still ran smoothly for my liking (it's just the grass I set back down again). I even had 2x AA and AF, where it recommended none.
I've no idea what the framerate is and I'm too lazy to find out. :sweatdrop:
doc_bean
11-03-2006, 23:56
For you guys who are "stuck" on a 1280x1024 monitor.....
This is not a bad thing
If you can really max every detail and give it 4xFSAA and 16XAF you will have a beautiful looking game. If you've got a bucket load of Full Screen Anti Aliasing on then you'll never need more than 1280 resolution.
Enjoy! ~D
Honestly I barely notice the difference between a game running in 1280x960 and one running 1024x768 on a 19" screen. I think people just like to brag about what their machine can handle, same thing with fps.
1280*1024 is not terrible, particularly for those with way powerful cards, just max everything & pump up the AA/AF & start saving up for a new monitor.
I believe there are/will shortly be a bunch of very attractively priced 22" LCDs :2thumbsup:
Some say 30 fps is enough to play a game,but I don't find it enough.Especially with shooters, you need a high fps (125 fps is ideal).
For total war games you don't need that high fps,but I wouldn't like to go under 70 fps :no:
It runs so more smoothly than with 30 fps....
So,actually,going UNDER 30 fps really is unplayable in my opinion,but if that is okay with you in person,then who am I?
Uhhh, last time I checked humans can't notice anything past 60fps so it doesen't matter if you have 125. 60 is the best you can get.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.